5 ms·

Meta suspends accounts tracking jets

43 points by perihelions 2y ago

greatgib 2y ago
Now private companies are deciding of their own extrajudicial laws.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  This is nonsensical, private companies (like individuals) can choose who they allow to use their products, just like they always have.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    They shouldn't be able to if they're monopolies.
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    You should say services, not products. People who make products can't generally choose who gets to use them. But, in any case, private companies should never be both allowed to do what they like and allowed to be monopolies. Since we don't break up monopolies any more, that means they can't be allowed to do what they like.
- SllX 2y ago
  Not extrajudicial laws. Terms of Service. Private companies can’t pass laws and Facebook is not an unrestricted hosting provider. Never has been. You can disagree with Facebook’s choice without disputing their ability to do something, in this case ban a bunch of jet tracking accounts.
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  now? between 2016 and twitter's acquisition, during the massive campaign to crush political dissent on all social media, the common and oft-repeated wisdom was something among the lines of "corporations are free to do whatever they want with their platforms"
WalterSobchak 2y ago
https://archive.is/4G3Uj https://archive.is/4G3Uj
bigfatkitten 2y ago
But they allow CSAM to more or less go unchecked on Facebook. What interesting priorities they have.
- bediger4000 2y ago
  Class solidarity with other billionaires and similarly rich folk explains it easily.
  - twisterius 2y ago
    [dead]
- loeg 2y ago
  They absolutely do not.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  How do you even come up with a conclusion like that?
  - bigfatkitten 2y ago
    That would be a good question for Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Stanford Internet Observatory, the Wall Street Journal and numerous other organisations who have written at length about the problem. https://archive.is/ter4Y https://archive.is/ter4Y https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/07/meta-instagram-self-generated-child-sexual-abuse-materials https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/07/meta-inst... Their findings mirror my own experience. I've got a throwaway account that has no friends, and follows no groups. In the absence of anything else to go on as to my preferences, the "algorithm" fills my feed mainly with flat earth theories, anti transgender content and child sexual exploitation. When I report the latter, around 90% of the time I receive a response that says: We didn't remove this post To keep our review process as fair as possible, we use the same set of Community Standards to review all reports. We've taken a look and found that this content doesn't go against our Community Standards. We understand that this might be upsetting and so we recommend exploring the options available to control what you see. You can also request a review within 180 days if you disagree with the decision to not take this down.
amatecha 2y ago
IMO, people who own and regularly fly in private jets are definitely worthy of the scrutiny -- not to mention the flight tracking data is public information. That said, to me it's redundant: social platforms owned by publicly-traded corporations are probably not worth enriching with your free content anyways. Every login, every post, every "favorite"/"like" is literally growing their profits.
- aeternum 2y ago
  The tyranny of the majority. Doxing "me" should of course be illegal but for certain groups of "others", it's just fine.
  - ForHackernews 2y ago
    Don't like it? Fly commercial.
    - aeternum 2y ago
      Neighbor sets up a camera pointing at your driveway that posts to socials whenever you come and go. Don't like it? Don't own a house or car.
      - clipsy 2y ago
        Unfortunately, that's an accurate description of how little privacy the vast majority of us have.
      - ForHackernews 2y ago
        It's extraordinarily easy to be not-famous. I don't have any sympathy for people who deliberately court wealth and fame and then whine about the minor drawbacks that come along with them.
  - bsder 2y ago
    Rules for thee but not for me. Zuck sure likes vacuuming up and aggregating everybody else's information but gets cranky when someone starts doing the same to him.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 2y ago
> Andy Stone, a spokesman for Meta, which also owns Facebook, said the accounts were disabled for “violating our privacy policy,” that they posed a “risk of physical harm of individuals,” and that the decision followed the recommendation of Meta’s independent Oversight Board. I love how they just spew vague nonsense, unchallenged. How exactly does knowing that Celebrity X traveled from LA to NYC yesterday "pose a risk of physical harm?" Show the cause and effect, Andy Stone. Paint a believable picture that connects the dots from this information to "harm." But, Andy Stone will never have to actually do that or be specific because journalists just publish corporate PR statements without pushback or probing.
- aeternum 2y ago
  >How exactly does knowing that Celebrity X traveled from LA to NYC yesterday "pose a risk of physical harm?" It's not just "travelled" it's "travelling". You can track the jet in realtime and if on a flight plan (which is most of the time) you can determine their destination ahead of time along with a highly accurate arrival time. Paparazzi or more nefarious actors can then wait at the private airport terminal. It's also not theoretical as Elon's ex-wife + kids were attacked using this method and Paparazzi uses it regularly. The best argument against this is that Meta banning it doesn't do much as people can still query FAA data directly.
  - mthoms 2y ago
    >It's also not theoretical as Elon's ex-wife + kids were attacked using this method and Paparazzi uses it regularly. There's no evidence that this incident involved the jet tracking. It occurred in the neighbourhood where his ex-wife lives. https://archive.is/RWW4T https://archive.is/RWW4T (Washington Post)
  - waffleiron 2y ago
    We should not longer have music festivals with this argumentation (as a random example from millions). People exactly know where and what time famous are at a specific location. Sure it might not be "highly accurate timing" but lets be honest a stalker doesn’t care about a bunch of hours more or less. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1842048755169690103 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1842048755169690103 Oh no Musk revealed where he’s going to be, someone could wait for him there. It’s quite obvious that this is not about stalking as Elon loves being seen/heard and doesn't shy away from the public.
7e 2y ago
https://www.businessinsider.com/grimes-tracked-elon-musk-private-jet-to-serve-custody-papers-2023-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/grimes-tracked-elon-musk-pri... is a hilarious related story. It's trivial for the ultra rich to avoid this tracking: just use jet shares.
cadamsau 2y ago
Seems they could move the tracking to their own website, no?
- GuB-42 2y ago
  They are already in several places https://grndcntrl.net/links/ https://grndcntrl.net/links/

43 points by perihelions 2y ago

greatgib 2y ago

Now private companies are deciding of their own extrajudicial laws.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
This is nonsensical, private companies (like individuals) can choose who they allow to use their products, just like they always have.
- fsflover 2y ago
  They shouldn't be able to if they're monopolies.
- globular-toast 2y ago
  You should say services, not products. People who make products can't generally choose who gets to use them. But, in any case, private companies should never be both allowed to do what they like and allowed to be monopolies. Since we don't break up monopolies any more, that means they can't be allowed to do what they like.
SllX 2y ago
Not extrajudicial laws. Terms of Service. Private companies can’t pass laws and Facebook is not an unrestricted hosting provider. Never has been. You can disagree with Facebook’s choice without disputing their ability to do something, in this case ban a bunch of jet tracking accounts.
123yawaworht456 2y ago
now? between 2016 and twitter's acquisition, during the massive campaign to crush political dissent on all social media, the common and oft-repeated wisdom was something among the lines of "corporations are free to do whatever they want with their platforms"

WalterSobchak 2y ago

https://archive.is/4G3Uj https://archive.is/4G3Uj

bigfatkitten 2y ago

But they allow CSAM to more or less go unchecked on Facebook. What interesting priorities they have.

bediger4000 2y ago
Class solidarity with other billionaires and similarly rich folk explains it easily.
- twisterius 2y ago
  [dead]
loeg 2y ago
They absolutely do not.
Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
How do you even come up with a conclusion like that?
- bigfatkitten 2y ago
  That would be a good question for Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Stanford Internet Observatory, the Wall Street Journal and numerous other organisations who have written at length about the problem. https://archive.is/ter4Y https://archive.is/ter4Y https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/07/meta-instagram-self-generated-child-sexual-abuse-materials https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/07/meta-inst... Their findings mirror my own experience. I've got a throwaway account that has no friends, and follows no groups. In the absence of anything else to go on as to my preferences, the "algorithm" fills my feed mainly with flat earth theories, anti transgender content and child sexual exploitation. When I report the latter, around 90% of the time I receive a response that says: We didn't remove this post To keep our review process as fair as possible, we use the same set of Community Standards to review all reports. We've taken a look and found that this content doesn't go against our Community Standards. We understand that this might be upsetting and so we recommend exploring the options available to control what you see. You can also request a review within 180 days if you disagree with the decision to not take this down.

amatecha 2y ago

IMO, people who own and regularly fly in private jets are definitely worthy of the scrutiny -- not to mention the flight tracking data is public information. That said, to me it's redundant: social platforms owned by publicly-traded corporations are probably not worth enriching with your free content anyways. Every login, every post, every "favorite"/"like" is literally growing their profits.

aeternum 2y ago
The tyranny of the majority. Doxing "me" should of course be illegal but for certain groups of "others", it's just fine.
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  Don't like it? Fly commercial.
  - aeternum 2y ago
    Neighbor sets up a camera pointing at your driveway that posts to socials whenever you come and go. Don't like it? Don't own a house or car.
    - clipsy 2y ago
      Unfortunately, that's an accurate description of how little privacy the vast majority of us have.
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      It's extraordinarily easy to be not-famous. I don't have any sympathy for people who deliberately court wealth and fame and then whine about the minor drawbacks that come along with them.
- bsder 2y ago
  Rules for thee but not for me. Zuck sure likes vacuuming up and aggregating everybody else's information but gets cranky when someone starts doing the same to him.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ryandrake 2y ago

> Andy Stone, a spokesman for Meta, which also owns Facebook, said the accounts were disabled for “violating our privacy policy,” that they posed a “risk of physical harm of individuals,” and that the decision followed the recommendation of Meta’s independent Oversight Board. I love how they just spew vague nonsense, unchallenged. How exactly does knowing that Celebrity X traveled from LA to NYC yesterday "pose a risk of physical harm?" Show the cause and effect, Andy Stone. Paint a believable picture that connects the dots from this information to "harm." But, Andy Stone will never have to actually do that or be specific because journalists just publish corporate PR statements without pushback or probing.

aeternum 2y ago
>How exactly does knowing that Celebrity X traveled from LA to NYC yesterday "pose a risk of physical harm?" It's not just "travelled" it's "travelling". You can track the jet in realtime and if on a flight plan (which is most of the time) you can determine their destination ahead of time along with a highly accurate arrival time. Paparazzi or more nefarious actors can then wait at the private airport terminal. It's also not theoretical as Elon's ex-wife + kids were attacked using this method and Paparazzi uses it regularly. The best argument against this is that Meta banning it doesn't do much as people can still query FAA data directly.
- mthoms 2y ago
  >It's also not theoretical as Elon's ex-wife + kids were attacked using this method and Paparazzi uses it regularly. There's no evidence that this incident involved the jet tracking. It occurred in the neighbourhood where his ex-wife lives. https://archive.is/RWW4T https://archive.is/RWW4T (Washington Post)
- waffleiron 2y ago
  We should not longer have music festivals with this argumentation (as a random example from millions). People exactly know where and what time famous are at a specific location. Sure it might not be "highly accurate timing" but lets be honest a stalker doesn’t care about a bunch of hours more or less. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1842048755169690103 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1842048755169690103 Oh no Musk revealed where he’s going to be, someone could wait for him there. It’s quite obvious that this is not about stalking as Elon loves being seen/heard and doesn't shy away from the public.

7e 2y ago

https://www.businessinsider.com/grimes-tracked-elon-musk-private-jet-to-serve-custody-papers-2023-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/grimes-tracked-elon-musk-pri... is a hilarious related story. It's trivial for the ultra rich to avoid this tracking: just use jet shares.

cadamsau 2y ago

Seems they could move the tracking to their own website, no?

GuB-42 2y ago
They are already in several places https://grndcntrl.net/links/ https://grndcntrl.net/links/